Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Miller v. Miller

In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.

Ohio Trial Court Fails to Consider Expert Testimony—Appellate Court Remands

In this Ohio divorce case, the trial court did not consider a valuation report of a competent expert the husband submitted. As such, “the trial court erred by sustaining an objection which appellant never made and by rendering judgment without considering all the evidence presented.” The trial court also erred by failing to reserve jurisdiction to modify the spousal maintenance award and not explaining why it refused to do so. The Appellate Court remanded on both of the above issues.

No Automatic Bar to Minority Discount in Divorce Cases

Appeals court says state law does not bar use of minority share discount in divorce cases and declines to impose a bright-line rule; rather, the trial court has to consider interest holder’s level of control and likelihood of sale before use of discount.

Asset Approach Avoids Double Counting of Future Earnings

Appeals court affirms trial court’s decision favoring asset approach for valuing owner spouse’s medical practices; unlike income approach, it avoids accounting for owner spouse’s future earning twice, in asset valuation and determination of alimony.

Schickner v. Schickner

Appeals court says state law does not bar use of minority share discount in divorce cases and declines to impose a bright-line rule; rather, the trial court has to consider interest holder’s level of control and likelihood of sale before use of discount.

In re Mauer

Appeals court affirms trial court’s decision favoring asset approach for valuing owner spouse’s medical practices; unlike income approach, it avoids accounting for owner spouse’s future earning twice, in asset valuation and determination of alimony.

Competition from Walmart significantly reduces small business value

In this case, the trial court rejected the expert’s testimony and conducted its own valuation of husband’s optometry practice.

Covert v. Covert

The issue in this case was the value of an optometry practice.

Prairie Eye Center, Ltd. v. Patrick J. Butler, M.D.

The Illinois Court of Appeals, 4th District, considered whether a lost profits award for breach of a non-compete agreement was speculative.

Roger Brignull v. Paul Albert

The Maine Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision to award damages for breach of a noncompete agreement.

Liquidated Damages Enforced in Noncompete Agreement Because Amount Was Reasonable

The Maine Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision to award damages for breach of a noncompete agreement.

11 results